Civil rights: other; standards for public bodies collecting and reporting data related to race and ethnicity; establish. Creates new act.
SB 953 would create the Michigan Data Collection Act and require public bodies, when they ask individuals to identify their race or ethnicity in a writing, to use a single combined race-and-ethnicity question with specified minimum categories and subcategories. The bill defines covered public bodies broadly, including state agencies, the legislature, local governments, school districts, special districts, state public universities, and other publicly created or publicly funded entities performing governmental functions.
The bill sets detailed standards for the forms or other writings used to collect race and ethnicity data. It requires categories for White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and Middle Eastern or North African, along with listed subcategories and a write-in option. It also requires an instruction telling respondents they may select all that apply and provide additional details. For workforce and hiring data, public bodies would have up to three years after the act takes effect before the new category requirements apply.
SB 953 also requires each covered public body to publish an action plan on race and ethnicity data within 18 months, describing steps taken to comply and potential risks associated with collecting the data. The bill makes the collected race and ethnicity data exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and it directs public bodies to update the listed subcategories after future census data become available so the forms reflect the six most populous subcategories in each minimum category in Michigan.
The bill’s impact would be to standardize how state and local government entities collect demographic information, likely affecting employment forms, surveys, and other public-facing data collection documents. It would also create new compliance obligations for public bodies, including website posting requirements and periodic updates tied to census data. Because it is a new act, it would add to Michigan law rather than amend an existing statute.
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at improving consistency and specificity in demographic data collection, while also protecting privacy through FOIA exemption. Potential points of contention likely include the administrative burden on public bodies, the cost and complexity of revising forms and systems, the breadth of the required categories and subcategories, and the requirement to publish an action plan discussing risks associated with collecting race and ethnicity data.
The bill would create a new Michigan Data Collection Act governing how public bodies collect race and ethnicity information, requiring standardized combined questions, specified categories and subcategories, public action plans, and FOIA protection for the collected data. It would affect state agencies, local governments, school districts, public universities, and other publicly created or funded entities, and it would impose phased compliance deadlines and future updates based on census data.
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or voting pattern to assess. From the bill text, the measure appears generally policy-driven and administrative in nature, with an emphasis on standardization, demographic specificity, and privacy protections. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the materials means sentiment is best characterized as unknown from the available history.
Likely areas of contention include the operational burden on public bodies that must revise forms, train staff, and update data systems; the cost and feasibility of implementing detailed race and ethnicity categories; and whether the mandated subcategories appropriately reflect Michigan’s population. Privacy advocates may support the FOIA exemption, while others may question the requirement to publish an action plan describing risks associated with collecting the data. The bill’s broad application to many public entities could also raise concerns about scope and compliance complexity.